Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

_nahamna_ in the Atalante fragments

Expand Messages
  • Petri Tikka
    Ales Bican suggests in his study of the Atalante Fragments that _nahamna_ to hýþe (V:47) might be analyzed as _na-_ to prefixed preposition (V:374) +
    Message 1 of 10 , Feb 8, 2003
    • 0 Attachment
      Ales Bican suggests in his study of the "Atalante Fragments"
      that _nahamna_ "to hýþe" (V:47) might be analyzed as _na-_ "to"
      prefixed preposition (V:374) + HAM- *"ground" (QL:39L) +
      _-na_ (?) noun ending. One problem with this is that _-na_ is not
      necessarily a noun ending; _-na_ in _samna_ "wooden post" <
      _STAB-_ might be an adjectival ending later developing a nominal
      meaning (since the original meaning of STAB- isn't known) as also
      _namna_ "statute" < *_nam-_ "judge" (in _namin_ "I judge",
      VT41:13). Another is that _-na_ might also be a form of the allative
      case ending _-nna_ before consonants, since _-nna_ is in all likelihood
      derived from _NÂ-_ (V:374).

      These are minor points, but I would rather analyze _nahamna_ as
      _na-_ "to" nominal prefix + HAM *"ground" + _-na_ allative case
      ending. A similar construction is _nuhuinenna_ (SD:246) < _nu_
      "under" (LR:398) + _huine_ "shadow" (LR:56) + _-nna_ allative
      case ending. *_nahan_ "to ground" is indeed where ships come when
      arriving at a harbour. Prefixed prepositions (indicating grammatical
      position in a sentence) are not used in the context where this word is
      found, but instead case endings (e.g. _kilyanna_ "to-chasm"). Suddenly
      having such a form would be surprising indeed, and the explanation
      of euphony seems fragile, since understanding the meaning is mostly
      outweighing in non-poetic texts.

      Petri Tikka Helsinki, Finland
      kari.j.tikka@...
      http://www.geocities.com/petristikka/
    • Ales Bican
      ... **This is actually one of possibilities I suggested. I tried primarily to find the base from Etym and the most likely ones I could think of were KHAM-
      Message 2 of 10 , Mar 7 8:59 AM
      • 0 Attachment
        Petri Tikka wrote:

        > Ales Bican suggests in his study of the "Atalante Fragments"
        > that _nahamna_ "to hýþe" (V:47) might be analyzed as _na-_ "to"
        > prefixed preposition (V:374) + HAM- *"ground" (QL:39L) +
        > _-na_ (?) noun ending.

        **This is actually one of possibilities I suggested. I tried primarily
        to find the base from Etym and the most likely ones I could think
        of were KHAM- "sit" and KHAP- "enfold"; in the latter case,
        _hamna_ might be "something that is enfolded", hence "harbor".

        > One problem with this is that _-na_ is not
        > necessarily a noun ending;

        **You are quite right that the suffix _-na_ means a problem here,
        since it is rather an adjectival/participial suffix and the words
        (adjectives/participles) derived by it could be nominalized (and it
        seems that even some _-na_ adjectives could be verbalized, as
        _lumna-_ "heavy" and "to lie heavy").

        > _-na_ in _samna_ "wooden post" <
        > _STAB-_ might be an adjectival ending later developing a nominal
        > meaning (since the original meaning of STAB- isn't known)

        **Judging from _stabrô_ "carpenter, wright, builder", the base
        STAB- might mean something like "to hew, to wright, to build
        from wood". Hence _samna_ "wooden post" might literally be
        "something built from wood".

        > as also
        > _namna_ "statute" < *_nam-_ "judge" (in _namin_ "I judge",
        > VT41:13).

        **Here _namna_ "statute" might be "something that is/was judged",
        what do you think?

        > Another is that _-na_ might also be a form of the allative
        > case ending _-nna_ before consonants, since _-nna_ is in all likelihood
        > derived from _NÂ-_ (V:374).
        >
        > These are minor points, but I would rather analyze _nahamna_ as
        > _na-_ "to" nominal prefix

        **What do you mean by "nominal prefix"?

        > + HAM *"ground" + _-na_ allative case
        > ending. A similar construction is _nuhuinenna_ (SD:246) < _nu_
        > "under" (LR:398) + _huine_ "shadow" (LR:56) + _-nna_ allative
        > case ending. *_nahan_ "to ground" is indeed where ships come when
        > arriving at a harbour.

        **You may be right, though the word _nahan_ does not seem like
        a usual Q word. But then if a harbor can have a name like _Elenna_... : )

        > Prefixed prepositions (indicating grammatical
        > position in a sentence) are not used in the context where this word is
        > found, but instead case endings (e.g. _kilyanna_ "to-chasm"). Suddenly
        > having such a form would be surprising indeed, and the explanation
        > of euphony seems fragile, since understanding the meaning is mostly
        > outweighing in non-poetic texts.

        **You may be right, but the form *_hamnanna_ is slightly odd -- too
        many nasals. At any rate, there must be something unusual about the
        word _nahamna_, because it is the only word that is not a proper name
        that was not translated by Alboin.


        Ales Bican

        --
        kurvannapi vyalíkáni yah. priyah. priya eva sah.
        anekadós.adus.t.ó 'pi káyah. kasya na vallabhah.
      • Petri Tikka
        ... Isn t that what I just implied? So I do agree. ... I m not actually certain, but I think I mean it here as a preposition used as a mark of location
        Message 3 of 10 , Mar 8 3:48 AM
        • 0 Attachment
          Ales Bican tence:

          > Petri Tikka wrote:
          >
          > > _-na_ in _samna_ "wooden post" <
          > > _STAB-_ might be an adjectival ending later developing a nominal
          > > meaning [...]
          > [...]
          > > as also _namna_ "statute" < *_nam-_ "judge" (in _namin_ "I
          > > judge",VT41:13).
          >
          > **Here _namna_ "statute" might be "something that is/was judged",
          > what do you think?

          Isn't that what I just implied? So I do agree.

          > > These are minor points, but I would rather analyze _nahamna_ as
          > > _na-_ "to" nominal prefix
          >
          > **What do you mean by "nominal prefix"?

          I'm not actually certain, but I think I mean it here as a preposition
          used as a mark of location regardless of grammatical context, being
          an independent word, like _under-_ in _under-world_.

          > > + HAM *"ground" + _-na_ allative case
          > > ending. A similar construction is _nuhuinenna_ (SD:246) < _nu_
          > > "under" (LR:398) + _huine_ "shadow" (LR:56) + _-nna_ allative
          > > case ending. *_nahan_ "to ground" is indeed where ships come when
          > > arriving at a harbour.
          >
          > **You may be right, though the word _nahan_ does not seem like
          > a usual Q word. But then if a harbor can have a name like _Elenna_... : )

          That would be quite impossible in Finnish; adding case endings to nouns
          in order to form place names, I mean, because Finnish can't have
          identical case endings adjacent (though different ones are possible),
          and pre- and postpositions are rare.

          This introduces a question to me:

          How would one express grammatical movement to the place called _Elenna_
          in Quenya? One possibility is adding the allative case _-nna_ again to
          _Elenna_; it would produce a quite uneuphonic (*)*_Elennanna_, which
          would be subject to haplology. Thus simply _Elenna_ could be a possibility.
          Another is the preposition _na_ "to, towards" (V:374): *_na Elenna_, but
          this would induce tautology with two nearby allative elements of the same
          origin.

          > > Prefixed prepositions (indicating grammatical
          > > position in a sentence) are not used in the context where this word is
          > > found, but instead case endings (e.g. _kilyanna_ "to-chasm"). Suddenly
          > > having such a form would be surprising indeed, and the explanation
          > > of euphony seems fragile, since understanding the meaning is mostly
          > > outweighing in non-poetic texts.
          >
          > **You may be right, but the form *_hamnanna_ is slightly odd -- too
          > many nasals.

          If euphony is the problem, one may wonder why not *_na hamna_, with
          _na_ as a simple unglued preposition. I would consider analysing _na-_
          in _nahamna_ as a grammatical preposition quite implausible, though not
          impossible; I would suggest that you could update your analysis of the
          _Atalante_ fragments on this matter.

          >At any rate, there must be something unusual about the
          > word _nahamna_, because it is the only word that is not a proper name
          > that was not translated by Alboin.

          Yes, but it was translated into Old English.

          Mára mesta,

          Petri Tikka Helsinki, Finland
          kari.j.tikka@...
          http://www.geocities.com/petristikka/
        • David Kiltz
          ... Nominal prefixes occur frequently in Quenya: E.g. _mirroanwi_, tercenye_ etc. [_Mirroanwi_ Incarnates, those (spirits) put into flesh
          Message 4 of 10 , Mar 9 12:50 AM
          • 0 Attachment
            On Samstag, März 8, 2003, at 12:48 Uhr, Petri Tikka wrote:

            > Ales Bican tence:
            >
            >> Petri Tikka wrote:
            >>> I would rather analyze _nahamna_ as
            >>> _na-_ "to" nominal prefix
            >>
            >> **What do you mean by "nominal prefix"?
            >
            > I mean it here as a preposition
            > used as a mark of location regardless of grammatical context, being
            > an independent word, like _under-_ in _under-world_.

            Nominal prefixes occur frequently in Quenya: E.g. _mirroanwi_,
            tercenye_ etc.

            [_Mirroanwi_ 'Incarnates, those (spirits) put into flesh' < _mi-
            srawanwe_ (X:350); _essi tercenye_ 'names of insight' (X:216).
            Give glosses and page references, please! -- PHW]

            A discussion of euphony or dysphony follows.

            I think it's quite clear from the attested corpus that Quenya could use
            either a local preposition or a case ending in these cases: _mi Númen_
            vs. _Númessier_, _mi oromardi_ vs. _mahalmassen_. This should be
            possible with _na_ vs _-nna_ as well.

            > Why not *_na hamna_, with
            > _na_ as a simple unglued preposition. I would consider analysing _na-_
            > in _nahamna_ as a grammatical preposition quite implausible, though not
            > impossible.

            Because it's not a preposition here.

            I think to understand the meaning of _nahamna_ one has to see it in the
            context of the evolving text. _Nahamna_ changed to _kamindon_ >
            _akamna_ > _nukumna_ (IX:311). None of these forms seems to
            correspond to the OE "translation" _to h´ythe_. Indeed, I think all
            the above forms mean "humbled" as does the Adunaic
            translation _zabathaan_(IX:247 et al.).

            This leaves us with 3 roots, HAM-, KAM-, KUM-. Petri Tikka notes that
            HAM can be interpreted as"ground" in the QL. KAM might mean the same
            (cf. KEM- in The Etymologies or, perhaps, Adunaic _kamaat_.) I don't
            know about KUM. Maybe it's a further derivative ? Do KU3- "bow" or
            KUM- "void" come in ?

            At any rate, if we assume that HAM/KAM here means "ground", we get:
            "to-ground-ed", "ground-ed-like" (_kamin-ndon_), and "very-ground-ed"
            (with sundóma as an intensifier). _Nukumna_ may be "down-bow-ed"
            or "down-void-ed", if it doesn't also contain "ground".

            Of course, this is just an assumption for heuristic reasons. It shows,
            however, I think, that _-in_/_na_ here are indeed participle endings.
            If anything, the semantic connection with Latin _humilis_, as already
            noted by Ales, makes the case only stronger.

            David Kiltz
          • Carl F. Hostetter
            ... This presentation fails to account for a critical fact concerning the first stage of the (indeed) evolving text: Tolkien s Old English translation
            Message 5 of 10 , Mar 9 8:37 AM
            • 0 Attachment
              On Sunday, March 9, 2003, at 03:50 AM, David Kiltz wrote:

              > I think to understand the meaning of _nahamna_ one has to see it in
              > the context of the evolving text. _Nahamna_ changed to _kamindon_ >
              > _akamna_ > _nukumna_ (IX:311). None of these forms seems to correspond
              > to the OE "translation" _to h´ythe_. Indeed, I think all the above
              > forms mean "humbled" as does the Adunaic translation
              > _zabathaan_(IX:247 et al.).

              This presentation fails to account for a critical fact concerning the
              first stage of the (indeed) evolving text: Tolkien's Old English
              translation accompanies only the _first_ version; indeed the OE text is
              written on "a slip of paper giving the Quenya fragments in their
              original form" (IX:317), i.e., as Christopher Tolkien goes on to note,
              in a form identical to that in _The Lost Road_, not incorporating even
              the minor changes found in the first version of the text in _The Notion
              Club Papers_ (IX:310). The natural implication of this is that OE _to
              hy'the_ is a translation of _nahamna_.

              Of course, it remains _possible_ that _to hy'the_ does _not_ translate
              _nahamna_; i.e., that in the act of translating the restated _Lost
              Road_ text into OE, Tolkien, _at that point_, decided that the meaning
              he wanted to express was not whatever _nahamna_ means (in this
              scenario, perhaps Tolkien, in the intervening years, had himself
              forgotten what it meant when he wrote it!), and instead wrote _to
              hy'the_, meaning to subsequently alter the Quenya to match. But there
              are at least two problems with this: first, Tolkien's normal work
              pattern would have been to simply mark up _nahamna_ on the spot, to
              change it to the revised form, which he did not do; and second, the
              next time he wrote the passage out (for Text E, IX:310), it still has
              _nahamna_ (note that this version precedes the version accompanying the
              first Adunaic translation).

              Even the third time he wrote it, it has _kamindon_, which looks for all
              the world like an adverbial form, and indeed against it is written the
              partial gloss "-ly" (IX:311); hence, it cannot translate _to hy'the_
              either. Moreover, _kamindon_ first appears in the version of the text
              that accompanies the first Adunaic translation, and corresponds there
              to _zabathaan_ 'humbled'; so it seems pretty clear that _kamindon_ is
              meant to translate 'humbled', and so too _akamna_, as _nukumna_ does
              explicitly (it is glossed thus, IX:246). But despite the apparent similarity
              of _nahamna_ and _akamna_, they must come from different bases
              (_nahamna_ from a base in KH-, _akamna_ from one in _K-_). So we
              can't really infer anything about _nahamna_ from _akamna_. Nor can we
              _necessarily_ infer anything about _nahamna_ from any of the later
              Quenya and Adunaic forms.


              --
              =========================================================================================Carl F. Hostetter Aelfwine@... http://www.elvish.org

              ho bios brachys, he de techne makre.
              Ars longa, vita brevis.
              The lyf so short, the craft so long to lerne.
              "I wish life was not so short," he thought. "Languages take such
              a time, and so do all the things one wants to know about."
            • Petri Tikka
              ... All nice and well, except that _mi_ in, within (V:373) and _-sse_ aren t cognates, while _na_ and _-nna_ are. One can sit _mahalmassen_ upon thrones
              Message 6 of 10 , Mar 9 9:25 AM
              • 0 Attachment
                David Kiltz tence:

                > I think it's quite clear from the attested corpus that Quenya could use
                > either a local preposition or a case ending in these cases: _mi Númen_
                > vs. _Númessier_, _mi oromardi_ vs. _mahalmassen_. This should be
                > possible with _na_ vs _-nna_ as well.

                All nice and well, except that _mi_ "in, within" (V:373) and _-sse_
                aren't cognates, while _na_ and _-nna_ are. One can sit _mahalmassen_
                "upon thrones" (UT:305), but not *_mi mahalmar_ "in thrones". The root
                of this preposition _mi_ indeed means "inside" (V:373). The applicability
                of _-sse_ is presumably more general, since it is the general "locative"
                case (VT6:14), not specific "inessive" or "adessive" as there are in
                Finnish. So the possibility of _na_ and _-nna_ co-existing and being
                used equivalently can't really be inferred from these examples.

                But there are other examples, such as the prepositional cognate of
                _-sse_: _se_ "at, in" (VT43:30). Its known usage in the (admittedly
                sparce) corpus is limited, while examples of the cognate locative case
                are abundant. Their interchangability is indeed a possibility: "It is
                noteworthy that _mi kon-alkorin_, _(mi) SEkormen_, and
                _kokormeneSSE_ were all allowed to stand, even though they seem
                to mean the same thing." (VT27:25; emphasis mine). The same
                interchangability might be true also for the cognates _na_ and _-(n)na_,
                at least in the earlier (external and internal) stages, because _-nna_
                evolved from postpositional use of _na_. Cf. Quenya _lúmenna_
                "upon the hour"(WJ:367) vs. Telerin _lúmena_ (WJ:407).

                Later stages present a problem, because, as far as I know, there are no
                known direct correspondances between a pre-/ postpositional element being
                equivalent in usage to a cognate case ending in later (external) Quenya.
                This might (speculatively) be because Tolkien had decided that the original
                postposition _na_ had been glued into its nouns and become a case
                ending _-na_. Its postpositional usage would have been forgotten because
                of analogy with the common words glued to which it had become a case
                ending. Prepositional usage is another matter, which might have survived if
                it was common enough in CE beside the evidently very common
                postpositional use. Much can't be said firmly on this matter.

                > On Samstag, März 8, 2003, at 12:48 Uhr, Petri Tikka wrote:
                >
                > > Why not *_na hamna_, with
                > > _na_ as a simple unglued preposition. I would consider analysing _na-_
                > > in _nahamna_ as a grammatical preposition quite implausible, though not
                > > impossible.
                >
                > Because it's not a preposition here. [Basis for this]

                That is a possibility (though not convincing; see a recent post 343 by Carl
                Hostetter on this subject matter), but the context was around the
                possibilitythat there is a preposition or case ending in _nahamna_. I
                objected to thepossibility that _na-_ in _nahamna_ is a glued
                preposition, concidering it highly unlikely. For basis, see my previous
                posts on the subject .

                Petri Tikka Helsinki, Finland
                kari.j.tikka@...
                http://www.geocities.com/petristikka/
              • David Kiltz
                ... I didn t mean to say that. The Etymologies give Quenya _an, ana, na_ to, towards , prefix _ana_. That is pretty close to the meaning of _-nna_. I do not
                Message 7 of 10 , Mar 10 12:23 AM
                • 0 Attachment
                  On Sonntag, März 9, 2003, at 06:25 Uhr, Petri Tikka wrote:

                  > David Kiltz tence:
                  >
                  >> I think it's quite clear from the attested corpus that Quenya could
                  >> use
                  >> either a local preposition or a case ending in these cases: _mi Númen_
                  >> vs. _Númessier_, _mi oromardi_ vs. _mahalmassen_. This should be
                  >> possible with _na_ vs _-nna_ as well.
                  >
                  > All nice and well, except that _mi_ "in, within" (V:373) and _-sse_
                  > aren't cognates, while _na_ and _-nna_ are. One can sit _mahalmassen_
                  > "upon thrones" (UT:305), but not *_mi mahalmar_ "in thrones". The root
                  > of this preposition _mi_ indeed means "inside" (V:373).
                  > So the possibility of _na_ and _-nna_ co-existing and being
                  > used equivalently can't really be inferred from these examples.

                  I didn't mean to say that.

                  The Etymologies give Quenya _an, ana, na_ "to, towards", prefix _ana_.
                  That is pretty close to the meaning of _-nna_. I do not say that _na_
                  (as preposition) and _-nna_ were used in exactly the same way. Although
                  the fact that _na_ and _-nna_ seem to be of identical origin makes it,
                  if anything, more likely. But I think it is very likely that _na-_
                  actually exists since it is attested in _nahamna_. Or, if you don't
                  accept that example, it is listed in The Etymologies.

                  >> Because it's not a preposition here. [Basis for this]
                  >
                  > That is a possibility (though not convincing; see a recent post 343 by
                  > Carl
                  > Hostetter on this subject matter), but the context was around the
                  > possibilitythat there is a preposition or case ending in _nahamna_. I
                  > objected to thepossibility that _na-_ in _nahamna_ is a glued
                  > preposition, concidering it highly unlikely. For basis, see my previous
                  > posts on the subject

                  I entirely agree. A "glued" preposition is not a preposition at all.
                  It's a nominal prefix. While a preposition _na_ might mean the same as
                  _-nna_ a nominal prefix creates a new word.

                  Prepositions are written separately, normally. Or does Tolkien's habit
                  differ ?

                  David Kiltz
                • Petri Tikka
                  ... I said as much in the post you are replying to. ... Certainly it exists, no one is denying that, but its meaning is in dispute. ... Listed in the
                  Message 8 of 10 , Mar 10 8:42 AM
                  • 0 Attachment
                    David Kiltz tence:

                    > The Etymologies give Quenya _an, ana, na_ "to, towards", prefix _ana_.
                    > That is pretty close to the meaning of _-nna_. I do not say that _na_
                    > (as preposition) and _-nna_ were used in exactly the same way. Although
                    > the fact that _na_ and _-nna_ seem to be of identical origin makes it,
                    > if anything, more likely.

                    I said as much in the post you are replying to.

                    > But I think it is very likely that _na-_
                    > actually exists since it is attested in _nahamna_.

                    Certainly it exists, no one is denying that, but its meaning is in dispute.

                    > Or, if you don't
                    > accept that example, it is listed in The Etymologies.

                    Listed in the Etymologies? I can't find such a prefix, only independent
                    preposition _na_ and prefix _ana-_ (VT:374).

                    > I entirely agree. A "glued" preposition is not a preposition at all.
                    > It's a nominal prefix. While a preposition _na_ might mean the same as
                    > _-nna_ a nominal prefix creates a new word.

                    Not always; cf. below.

                    > Prepositions are written separately, normally. Or does Tolkien's habit
                    > differ ?

                    Sometimes it does; e.g. the chart of pronouns suffixed with preposition
                    _ó-_ "with" (VT43:29) and _sekormen_, possibly with _se-_ locative
                    prefix (VT27:25). This is why Ales suspected (and beforme him also
                    Patrick Wynne and Christopher Gilson in VT27), by the translation
                    "to hýþe", that _na-_ in _nahamna_ is a grammatical preposition. I
                    have been objecting this; see previous posts on this thread by me.


                    [Not to mention _nuhuinenna_ 'under-shadow', showing _nu-_ 'under',
                    right there in the very text in question (IX:246). CFH]


                    Petri Tikka Helsinki, Finland
                    kari.j.tikka@...
                    http://www.geocities.com/petristikka/
                  • Ales Bican
                    ... **Judging from _Elenna.nóreo_ in CO, I suppose it would be something like _Elenna.nórenna_, i.e. some additional word (here _nóre_ land ) would be
                    Message 9 of 10 , Mar 28 6:34 AM
                    • 0 Attachment
                      Petri Tikka asked:

                      > How would one express grammatical movement to the place called _Elenna_
                      > in Quenya? One possibility is adding the allative case _-nna_ again to
                      > _Elenna_; it would produce a quite uneuphonic (*)*_Elennanna_, which
                      > would be subject to haplology. Thus simply _Elenna_ could be a possibility.
                      > Another is the preposition _na_ "to, towards" (V:374): *_na Elenna_, but
                      > this would induce tautology with two nearby allative elements of the same
                      > origin.

                      **Judging from _Elenna.nóreo_ in CO, I suppose it would be something
                      like _Elenna.nórenna_, i.e. some additional word (here _nóre_ "land")
                      would be attached to it, because as you note it would look and sound
                      somewhat strange with the additional word.

                      Then Petri suggested:

                      > I would suggest that you could update your analysis of the
                      > _Atalante_ fragments on this matter.

                      **I will certainly update it. I will try to incorporate what has been
                      said about the matter here. Helge Fauskanger was very kind to send me
                      his commentaries to the whole Analysis, so I am going to go through
                      the Analysis and revise some parts of it when I have time to.

                      As regards my opinions on what has been said about the topic since my
                      last responce to it, I agree with what Carl Hostetter wrote in messages
                      entitled 'Re: _nahamna_ in the Atalante fragments', one from March 9th
                      and one from March 10th, because it is more or less what I wanted to
                      say in the Analysis.

                      In another message Petri noted:

                      > Sometimes it does [i.e. prepositions are not written separately]; e.g. the
                      > chart of pronouns suffixed with preposition _ó-_ "with" (VT43:29) and
                      > _sekormen_, possibly with _se-_ locative prefix (VT27:25). This is
                      > why Ales suspected (and beforme him also Patrick Wynne and
                      > Christopher Gilson in VT27), by the translation "to hýþe", that _na-_
                      > in _nahamna_ is a grammatical preposition.

                      **Ah! So this is the place where I got the idea from. I had a feeling
                      that the idea of _nahamna_ being _na + hamna_ was not really my own
                      and that I saw it somewhere. However, since the majority of the
                      Analysis was written a year and half before the final revision, I could
                      not remember where I saw the idea. I tried to look it up, I also talked
                      about this with Patrick Wynne but we were not able to locate it. I am
                      glad it has emerged at length. : )

                      In another message David Kiltz wrote:

                      > This leaves us with 3 roots, HAM-, KAM-, KUM-. Petri Tikka notes that
                      > HAM can be interpreted as"ground" in the QL. KAM might mean the same
                      > (cf. KEM- in The Etymologies or, perhaps, Adunaic _kamaat_.) I don't
                      > know about KUM. Maybe it's a further derivative ? Do KU3- "bow" or
                      > KUM- "void" come in ?

                      **KUM was my assumption, but it was not the only one. We can find these
                      bases: KUPU "hump", KUVU "bent bow" (both from QL, p. 49L, R), KU3
                      "bow" (from Etym; + _kúna_ "bent, curved", MC:222). Bases KUMU "heap
                      up" (QL:49L) and KUB (meaning not given, contains a derivative _kumbe_
                      "mound, heap"; from Etym) might also be related to these.

                      Given the variety of bases I therefore postulated the base KUp "bend,
                      bow, hump" where the 'p' stand for a labial as such, because it cannot
                      be inferred what base underlied the form _kumna_, as the _m_ might be
                      a reflex of practically any labial: it might be KUP, KUB as well as
                      KUM (and even KUW/KUV I believe). (Let me note that the mysterious
                      so-called CB Grammar contains several forms which point to the base
                      KUB, but since the status of the document is not known, my conclusions
                      were not based on it.)

                      > At any rate, if we assume that HAM/KAM here means "ground", we get:
                      > "to-ground-ed", "ground-ed-like" (_kamin-ndon_), and "very-ground-ed"
                      > (with sundóma as an intensifier). _Nukumna_ may be "down-bow-ed"
                      > or "down-void-ed", if it doesn't also contain "ground".

                      **This is what I suggested in the Analysis, yes.


                      Ales Bican
                    • David Kiltz
                      ... Wouldn t that yield _kumpa_ rather than _kumna_ ? [Not necessarily. The _Etym._ gives instances of _*pn_ _mn_ in Quenya, notably Q. _telemna_ silver
                      Message 10 of 10 , Mar 28 9:49 PM
                      • 0 Attachment
                        On Freitag, März 28, 2003, at 03:34 Uhr, Ales Bican wrote:

                        > It might be KUP

                        Wouldn't that yield _kumpa_ rather than _kumna_ ?

                        [Not necessarily. The _Etym._ gives instances of _*pn_ >
                        _mn_ in Quenya, notably Q. _telemna_ 'silver' (adj.)
                        < KYELEP- or TELEP (V:366) and Q. _lemnar_ 'week'
                        < LEP- (V:368). However, the _Etym._ also has abundant
                        examples of bases ending in P with Q. derivatives containing
                        _-mp-_ rather than _-mn-_, e.g., _tompe_ pa.t. of _tope_
                        'covers' < TOP, _ampa_ 'hook' < GAP-, and _lempe_ 'five'
                        < LEP- (whence also _lemnar_ 'week'). A possible explanation
                        for these varying developments, at least at the time that the
                        _Etym._ was written, might be that P + N arising from
                        suffixion > _mn_ (_*lep-nar_ > _lemnar_), while elsewhere
                        Q. _-pm-_ is the result of nasal infixion, the nasal being
                        "homorganic", i.e. suited in point of articulation to the
                        consonant it precedes (_*le-m-pê_ > _lempe_). -- PHW]

                        >> At any rate, if we assume that HAM/KAM here means "ground", we get:
                        >> [...]

                        > **This is what I suggested in the Analysis, yes.

                        I know. I was basically recapping here.

                        David Kiltz


                        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.